The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.
It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.
Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.
As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.
What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.
It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.
Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.
As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.
What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.
It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.
Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.
As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.
What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's prophylactic question: what gives you the impression I'm denying anything?
Of course we have what we call dreams and hallucinations. And there's absolutely no reason to think they're anything other than the products of brain-activity. Unless, of course, you have evidence for the existence of any non-physical cause.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.
It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.
Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.
As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.
What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's prophylactic question: what gives you the impression I'm denying anything?
Of course we have what we call dreams and hallucinations. And there's absolutely no reason to think they're anything other than the products of brain-activity. Unless, of course, you have evidence for the existence of any non-physical cause.
No, I don't believe in ghosts.
Indeed dreams and hallucinations are products of brain activity. Or maybe too the product of brain-altering ingested or inhaled substances. To say dreams and hallucinations are produced by or are caused by brain activity is not the same as saying dreams and hallucinations are not subjective experiences. As experiences, dreams and hallucinations must be facts.
Effects of causes do exist. Each and every event is an effect of a cause.
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.
What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's prophylactic question: what gives you the impression I'm denying anything?
Of course we have what we call dreams and hallucinations. And there's absolutely no reason to think they're anything other than the products of brain-activity. Unless, of course, you have evidence for the existence of any non-physical cause.
No, I don't believe in ghosts.
Indeed dreams and hallucinations are products of brain activity. Or maybe too the product of brain-altering ingested or inhaled substances. To say dreams and hallucinations are produced by or are caused by brain activity is not the same as saying dreams and hallucinations are not subjective experiences. As experiences, dreams and hallucinations must be facts.
Effects of causes do exist. Each and every event is an effect of a cause.
I think we agree. People have what we call dreams and hallucinations. Fact. Feature of reality.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.
I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.
I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am
If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?
To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?
A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.
I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What is inverted qualia (supported by synesthesia)? From the materialistic view of Democritus to the 18th century to the new physicalism of a priori there is a new version of physicalism as an attitude.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 8:42 am
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.
I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.
I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.
And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 9:15 am
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.
And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
What makes you think that the Redness is in fact a product of Neural Activity? Redness seems Categorically different from Neurons and Chemistry and Electrochemical Activity. How do you Logically Explain that the Redness is a Physical process? I know you can't because nobody can. But why would you cling to that Incoherent Belief? You are just expressing a Religious type of Belief in Physicalism. If that is the case we are at an Impasse because it is virtually impossible to change the Mind of a Believer.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 9:26 am
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.
And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
What makes you think that the Redness is in fact a product of Neural Activity? Redness seems Categorically different from Neurons and Chemistry and Electrochemical Activity. How do you Logically Explain that the Redness is a Physical process? I know you can't because nobody can. But why would you cling to that Incoherent Belief? You are just expressing a Religious type of Belief in Physicalism. If that is the case we are at an Impasse because it is virtually impossible to change the Mind of a Believer.
You seem confused. Logic deals with language, not reality. Whether redness exists as a non-physical thing has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic.
And you can't shift the burden of proof, much as you want and need to. Either demonstrate the existence of redness as a non-physical thing, or stfu. Please don't waste any more of your/our time with your appeal to ignorance or incredulity.
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 10:29 am
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.
And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
What makes you think that the Redness is in fact a product of Neural Activity? Redness seems Categorically different from Neurons and Chemistry and Electrochemical Activity. How do you Logically Explain that the Redness is a Physical process? I know you can't because nobody can. But why would you cling to that Incoherent Belief? You are just expressing a Religious type of Belief in Physicalism. If that is the case we are at an Impasse because it is virtually impossible to change the Mind of a Believer.
You seem confused. Logic deals with language, not reality. Whether redness exists as a non-physical thing has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic.
And you can't shift the burden of proof, much as you want and need to. Either demonstrate the existence of redness as a non-physical thing, or stfu. Please don't waste any more of your/our time with your appeal to ignorance or incredulity.
I can Nudge you in the right direction in your Thinking, but it looks like in your case, I cannot make you Think. Bye to You.